16:9 vs 4:3 viewing area chart observation.

Using the Viewing area comparison chart for 16:9 vs 4:3 aspect ratio HDTVs it appears that a 36" 4:3 viewing area tv has a larger picture than a 30" or 32" 16:9 tv in all 4:3 and 16:9 programs. Its not till you get to 34" 16:9 tv that you get a larger picture than a 36" 4:3 tv when in 16:9 modes and that difference is only 5%. So it would appear to me that if I get a 36" 4:3 HDTV, I would be getting the best of both worlds unless I go to a larger than 34" 16:9 HDTV where you will be paying much, much more. Is this reasoning correct or am I missing something. Thanks!
Chart on http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

It's correct if 4:3 programs is more or just as important to you as 16:9. Some folks don't like seeing large black bars on top and bottom while others can't stand having the black bars on the sides. It's mostly personal preference. For me, since HD and DVD movies matter more than regular TV programs, I went for 16:9.

__________________"I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

I also agree, but the physical height of the box for the size of the picture is a more important factor than I first realized. I almost bought a 4:3 32" over my 30" widescreen, but I'm glad now I didn't.

I agree that the black bars on top and bottom or on both sides can be a problem. However, using the zoom feature to fill the screen, when necessary, is an option. Is there much distortion when using this option, particularly on Tosh. models? However even with the bars you are still getting as big or bigger pic. with the 36".

Using the Viewing area comparison chart for 16:9 vs 4:3 aspect ratio HDTVs it appears that a 36" 4:3 viewing area tv has a larger picture than a 30" or 32" 16:9 tv in all 4:3 and 16:9 programs. Its not till you get to 34" 16:9 tv that you get a larger picture than a 36" 4:3 tv when in 16:9 modes and that difference is only 5%. So it would appear to me that if I get a 36" 4:3 HDTV, I would be getting the best of both worlds unless I go to a larger than 34" 16:9 HDTV where you will be paying much, much more. Is this reasoning correct or am I missing something. Thanks!
Chart on http://www.cavecreations.com/tv2.cgi

I think you're absolutely right. My eye easily ignors the black bars at top & bottom, so it makes sense to me.

My choice was between a 32" 4:3 or a 30" 16:9

I went with the 32". Most of my programming is still 4:3 around where I live.

ok I got questions, are you viewing HDTV material on your 4:3 set, hopefully your answer is yes and you can answer the next question if its in high def and broadcast in 4:3 does it fill the screen without compromising resoulution IE: should it actually be a 4:3 picture in letterbox mode, ok next if it is a 16:9 broadcast picture and this is the important thing to me, will it display it full screen with cutting off the sides, with no resolution compromise. as I see it the major networks are still filming programming to pad to the 4:3 viewing public where the widescreen details are just extra bonus "stuff"

well hands on experience is better than the dork working in the store
so your help would be appreciated

I am currently watching high def programming on a analog tv
and looking between wide or standard size